search_string

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only search action but does not clarify matching semantics (literal vs. regex, encoding, offset addressing), and it claims to return 'all' matching locations while the schema enforces limit/offset pagination.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler, and the core verb and object are front-loaded. It is short and scannable, though it sacrifices useful behavioral detail for brevity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With five parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and several sibling search tools, this minimal description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, case-sensitivity defaults, or how this search differs from search_bytes, leaving important operational details implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters including defaults, bounds, and meanings. The description adds little beyond the schema, and 'string pattern' is slightly ambiguous, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear action ('Search for a string pattern'), the resource ('in the binary'), and the result ('return all matching locations'). It is distinct enough from the sibling search_bytes because it targets string patterns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use search_string versus closely related tools like search_bytes, search_rop_gadgets, or list_strings. The description provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent choose this tool over alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.